Re: Proposal: change following to informative - 5.2.6 thread

Hi John,

Le 25 sept. 2013 14:57, "John Arwe" <> a écrit :
> > 5.2.6 - rdf
> > +0: as 4.2.2 states (normatively) that "the LDPR is typically the
> > subject of most triples [of its representation]", it is good to
> > specify (also normatively) that LDPC are an exception to that rule
> > -- an LDP client should not expect the description of an LDPC to
> > only describe the LDPC.
> > +0: as 4.2.2 states (normatively) that "the LDPR is typically the
> Maybe I'm reading 4.2.2 differently then; I certainly have the ability to
read narrowly ;-)
> 1: "typically" occurs in a sentence containing zero 2119 keywords, which
leads me to think that sentence is incapable of placing any normative
requirements on anything.
> 2: "typically" itself signals to me that, even if this sentence were
normative, it would not be MUST-strength and therefore it would not give
clients anything new to *rely* on.

I grant you that, although this is part of a normative section, this does
not carry much requirement.

I guess I agree with you. As 4.2.2. does not convey a strong requirement,
making 5.2.6 normative does not make much sense.

Note however that my vote was +0, not -1, so it was not strongly
constraining either ;-)

> If others are interpreting the second sentence of 4.2.2 as normative, we
probably have another issue to resolve; and as you'd no doubt guess from
the text above, I'd likely propose making it non-normative in a more
visibly recognizable way.
> wrt 5.2.6, I think you're correct that its presence is a good foil to
4.2.2.  It's a good demonstration of why I was careful to say we'd keep any
text we changed to non-normative.>

> Best Regards, John
> Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
> Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario

Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2013 17:18:52 UTC